Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

[Joanne]

Benefit of Wi-Fi in teaching and learning > risk to health ?

[GrumbleDook]

Benefit of Wi-Fi in teaching and learning > risk to health ?

 

This starts looking at H&S law and ALARP.

 

The risk has to be reviewed against the harm, not in comparison the the benefits (which are difficult to quantify anyway).

[mavhc]

You can't argue with people who ignore facts, but you can ridicule them. Best case they start to argue against your parody, second best they accept your parody into their conspiracy

[Ephelyon]

If you ridicule people, they will shut down and stop listening to you. It becomes a vicious circle of abusive behaviour on both sides.

 

You have people here who believe something. While what they believe may turn out not to be genuine, their actual belief in it is genuine. If you denounce it, you are denying their reality and human beings generally find that very difficult to deal with. You can only develop the situation by engaging with it (which does not mean colluding with it); yah-boo-ery from the sidelines will fix nothing and only strengthen the resolve of others.

 

The notion that ridicule can solve problems and put to bed misguided views is, itself, one of the greatest pseudo-intellectual misconceptions of our generation.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Ephelyon

[elsiegee40]

If you ridicule people, they will shut down and stop listening to you. It becomes a vicious circle of abusive behaviour on both sides.

 

You have people here who believe something. While what they believe may turn out not to be genuine, their actual belief in it is genuine. If you denounce it, you are denying their reality and human beings generally find that very difficult to deal with. You can only develop the situation by engaging with it (which does not mean colluding with it); yah-boo-ery from the sidelines will fix nothing and only strengthen the resolve of others.

 

The notion that ridicule can solve problems and put to bed misguided views is, itself, one of the greatest pseudo-intellectual misconceptions of our generation.

 

... and the cause of quite a few wars.

[mavhc]

If you ridicule people, they will shut down and stop listening to you. It becomes a vicious circle of abusive behaviour on both sides.

 

You have people here who believe something. While what they believe may turn out not to be genuine, their actual belief in it is genuine. If you denounce it, you are denying their reality and human beings generally find that very difficult to deal with. You can only develop the situation by engaging with it (which does not mean colluding with it); yah-boo-ery from the sidelines will fix nothing and only strengthen the resolve of others.

 

The notion that ridicule can solve problems and put to bed misguided views is, itself, one of the greatest pseudo-intellectual misconceptions of our generation.

 

They shut down and stopped listening to people years ago. The point isn't to convince them, it's to stop other people going "well, it looks like they have a point", I'm just making a more obviously stupid version of their point, or more sensible, from a certain perspective.

 

Debate isn't about convincing your opponent, but the audience, which is much larger. And there's no point debating them with facts, because anyone convinced by facts wouldn't believe them in the first place.

[elsiegee40]

They shut down and stopped listening to people years ago. The point isn't to convince them, it's to stop other people going "well, it looks like they have a point", I'm just making a more obviously stupid version of their point, or more sensible, from a certain perspective.

 

Debate isn't about convincing your opponent, but the audience, which is much larger. And there's no point debating them with facts, because anyone convinced by facts wouldn't believe them in the first place.

 

I stop listening when others are ridiculed in a debate. I doubt I am alone in this. Why should I believe the person who is ridiculing any more than the person who is clearly being wrong? If the opponent can't give me the reasons why they are ridiculing the other then their reasoning may be just as flawed.

 

The wider audience needs facts in a debate.

[mavhc]

Because it's not a real problem, any more than you need facts in a debate about alien abductions, or whether Australia is a conspiracy of map makers. If you already believe the person is clearly wrong no point continuing to listen, they'll probably just post a 2 hour youtube video to explain it all in a few minutes. Conspiracy theorists always have super long youtube videos

[Ephelyon]

Debate isn't about convincing your opponent, but the audience, which is much larger.

 

That is the reasoning of a (modern) politician. It is also the reason why so many people have disengaged with politics and become cynical about the whole affair. It is, as I said, among the greatest fallacies of our time.

 

Would you not agree that, if you did manage to convince your opponent, you would convince the audience at the same time? It is better - albeit harder - to kill two birds with one stone.

[elsiegee40]

It is possible to understand that someone seems to be talking twaddle but not understand why.

 

If the opponents spend their time ridiculing then why should I believe them to be correct?

 

I still go on with the same gut feeling that I am correct but don't have the facts to be able to spread the message.

 

Much the same applies to politicians. When they spend their time bad-mouthing their opponents I end up switching off rather than really understanding the important issues and what can be done about it.

 

There is a place for humour, but ridicule is wasted if you want everyone to follow your beliefs.

[DJ-1701]

To be fair, it did take a very long time for the health effects of Tobacco to be recognised and for greater regulation. If there are any issues with WiFi further research needs to be done and a consensus in the Scientific and Medical communities.

[sted]

To be fair, it did take a very long time for the health effects of Tobacco to be recognised and for greater regulation. If there are any issues with WiFi further research needs to be done and a consensus in the Scientific and Medical communities.

with the added difference that was trying to prove something exists rather than the harder task of proving something dosemt

[GrumbleDook]

Ridiculing someone is about attacking a person not an idea.

 

At that point you lose a portion of the audience who wants to see you attack the idea itself.

 

Ridicule has its place, but often as a tool to bolster you own position with those that follow you, not follow the ideas or your arguments.

 

If you have never read it then look at Rhetoric http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

 

It is a good grounding in this. Also look at Socratic method.

 

Finally, watch Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister. Although it may appear dated, it is still a classic for looking at power struggles within organisations and political chicanery.

[DJ-1701]

Finally, watch Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister. Although it may appear dated, it is still a classic for looking at power struggles within organisations and political chicanery.

 

Although the content might be, I don't think the lessons in that series will ever be outdated.

[Ephelyon]

Just on that point, here's a good example from Yes, Prime Minister (camera angles are off but the content is discernible):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjePw1B21VY#t=9m17s

 

Until 12:00. This clip satirises both political games-playing and the "art" of rubbishing people rather than their ideas.

[pcstru]

However, radiation occurs in a huge range of wavelengths and some are considerably more harmful than others.

Right. And if wi-fi 'radiation' is absolutely "safe", then those that say so might reflect on my question earlier the the thread :

 

"To to try and illustrate that, we have a 5Ghz transmitter situated 1 meter from your head and we will vary the output power starting from 0.001W to 1,000,000W (9 orders of magnitude). At what point would you start to feel uncomfortable with this arrangement and why?"

 

Again, that's not arguing it is dangerous in a school, but the ridicule here seems perhaps ... poorly informed.

[elsiegee40]

Just on that point, here's a good example from Yes, Prime Minister (camera angles are off but the content is discernible):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjePw1B21VY#t=9m17s

 

Until 12:00. This clip satirises both political games-playing and the "art" of rubbishing people rather than their ideas.

 

Just had us all chuckling here

[mavhc]

If they'd call themselves "Raising money to fund research into the effects of wifi on humans", fine. Or "Wifi kills unicorns", also fine.

 

Also I did try asking them about radiation, they didn't answer. If they want to come to my school and sit in on a science lesson to learn about radiation, that'll be great, but they don't.

 

Fight science with science, and insanity with greater insanity.

 

Politics is what you can't prove with science, apparently kidnapping millions of people for your experiments isn't considered "ethical"

 

"Ridicule has its place, but often as a tool to bolster you own position with those that follow you, not follow the ideas or your arguments." My idea is: they have no clue what they're talking about, and don't care to learn. I already tested this theory by asking them what they were talking about, and then telling them the answers. My next idea was: how can this be funnier?

[Ephelyon]

Your next idea was cynicism.

 

Fighting science with science makes sense... but fighting insanity with further insanity? No, that is fighting fire with fire. We all know how that ends.

 

I think the issue here is with precepts. It seems as though, to your mind, it is already a certain fact that their argument belongs in the bin. That, however, is not a scientific approach - it is not objective. You do not "fight science with science" by abandoning the Null Hypothesis, nor do you correct the misunderstanding of others by disrespecting it. That approach has never, ever worked in the history of humanity, excepting those cases where brute force was employed (which we would not contemplate here).

 

We cannot proceed on a basis of disrespect.

[mavhc]

But you can fight fire with fire, stop oil well fires with explosives, create fire breaks in forests.

 

I'll respect people who say "I think wifi is causing me pain, can you help find out if that's true", or "I think I'm being abducted by aliens, please help me video my sleeping to find out what's going on", or "I think Australia is a conspiracy of cartographers, how do I build a satellite to find out?"

 

You earn respect, it's not a default. By default I'll assume you're not insane, but if everyone tells you you're getting the basics of what you're talking about wrong, and you don't listen, I draw conclusions.

 

If the alien conspiracy guy actually finds aliens, no one believes him. These people are doing a disservice to any actual evidence of problems, and to finding out what's actually causing people to have problems.

[pcstru]

If you fight insanity with insanity then, from the outside, people just see ... nutters fighting.

 

"You earn respect, it's not a default."

 

In my world, I respect people by default; I'll assume they are honest and act and say as they do because they believe that to be correct or acceptable. That default respect means I treat people as I would like to be treated, even when (perhaps especially when) I am wrong.

[DJ-1701]

In my world, I respect people by default; I'll assume they are honest and act and say as they do because they believe that to be correct or acceptable. That default respect means I treat people as I would like to be treated, even when (perhaps especially when) I am wrong.

 

I agree with that, respect by default, which may lead to admiration. Though I guess everyone is different, with the use of the phrase 'You've earned my respect'.

[dcwhitworth]

I agree with that, respect by default, which may lead to admiration. Though I guess everyone is different, with the use of the phrase 'You've earned my respect'.

 

I don't regard respect as a binary thing. Yes you should give people a default level of respect, but they can qualify for higher levels by appropriate behaviour

[Ephelyon]

I don't regard respect as a binary thing. Yes you should give people a default level of respect, but they can qualify for higher levels by appropriate behaviour

 

I'd agree with that. There is a "baseline" level of respect that I will offer to everyone who doesn't do anything to cause me to reconsider it, and there are ways to earn a higher level of respect as well.

[Andrew_C]

"Respect" is earned. I'm neutral to start with, from where you can go either way.